DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-23 are pending and presented for the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/07/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by Danielson et al (US 10597322 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Danielson et al teaches a glass composition comprising 77.156 mol% SiO2, 3.997 mol% Al2O3, 13.27 mol% Na2O, 0.100 mol% K2O, 4.757 mol% MgO, and 0.196 mol% CaO (see Table 2, composition 3). Each amount falls within the corresponding range of instant claim 12, and the R ratio Al2O3/Na2O of the aforementioned glass is 0.3. Each limitation of claim 12 is thus met by the Danielson et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 10071933 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al teaches a glass composition comprising in wt%, 70% SiO2, 2% Al2O3, 13% Na2-O, 1% K2O, 4% MgO, and 10% CaO (see Table 5). Converted to molar percentage, this glass comprises 69.25% SiO2, 1.17% Al2O3, 12.46% Na2O, 0.63% K2O, 5.90% MgO, and 10.60% CaO. As such, this glass meets each compositional limitation of instant claim 1 apart from having a SiO2 content lower than 73 mol%. However, Wang further teaches that the soda lime glass taught therein contains up to 81 wt% SiO2 (see Tables in column 7). Thus these ranges of the Wang et al prior art extend to greater than 73 mol% SiO2, and this further compositional range is overlapped and rendered obvious by the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Wang et al teaches that the soda lime glass embodiments can have a thickness of 0.1 mm (100 µm) as produced by special float process (see column 1, lines 45-50). As such, Wang et al teaches an ultrathin glass with a thickness falling within the limitations of the instant claim, and teaches that soda lime glasses of the ultrathin type can have compositions that, through routine optimization and experimentation of the ranges by one of ordinary skill in the art, would meet each compositional limitation of the instant claim. An article that renders obvious the instantly claimed glass article is therefore taught by Wang et al, and claim 1 is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al teaches a thickness of 100 µm.
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al teaches glass transition temperature values falling within the range of the instant claim (see Table 3), but does not specify glass transition temperature for the soda lime glass embodiment. However, this Tg property is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent Tg properties to those of the instant claims. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned soda lime glass taught by Wang et al has a density of 2.5 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned soda lime glass taught by Wang et al has a Young’s (elastic) modulus of 73 GPa.
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al does not specify a hardness of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the hardness property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent hardness properties to those of the instant claims. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al does not specify fracture toughness of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the fracture toughness property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent fracture toughness properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al does not quantitatively specify the brittleness of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the brittleness property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent brittleness properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al teaches Poisson ratio values falling within the range of the instant claim (see Table 3), but does not specify Poisson ratio for the soda lime glass embodiment. However, this property is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent Poisson ratio properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al does not specify average limit drop height of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the drop height property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent average limit drop height properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al teaches a glass composition comprising in wt%, 70% SiO2, 2% Al2O3, 13% Na2-O, 1% K2O, 4% MgO, and 10% CaO (see Table 5). Converted to molar percentage, this glass comprises 69.25% SiO2, 1.17% Al2O3, 12.46% Na2O, 0.63% K2O, 5.90% MgO, and 10.60% CaO. As such, this glass meets each compositional limitation of instant claim 12 apart from having a SiO2 content lower than 73 mol%. However, Wang further teaches that the soda lime glass taught therein contains up to 81 wt% SiO2 (see Tables in column 7). Thus these ranges of the Wang et al prior art extend to greater than 73 mol% SiO2, and this further compositional range is overlapped and rendered obvious by the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. A glass that renders obvious the instantly claimed glass composition is therefore taught by Wang et al, and claim 12 is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al teaches a glass composition comprising in wt%, 70% SiO2, 2% Al2O3, 13% Na2-O, 1% K2O, 4% MgO, and 10% CaO (see Table 5). Converted to molar percentage, this glass comprises 69.25% SiO2, 1.17% Al2O3, 12.46% Na2O, 0.63% K2O, 5.90% MgO, and 10.60% CaO. As such, this glass meets each compositional limitation of instant claim 13 apart from having a SiO2 content lower than 73 mol%. However, Wang further teaches that the soda lime glass taught therein contains up to 81 wt% SiO2 (see Tables in column 7). Thus these ranges of the Wang et al prior art extend to greater than 73 mol% SiO2, and this further compositional range is overlapped and rendered obvious by the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Wang et al teaches that the soda lime glass embodiments can have a thickness of 0.1 mm (100 µm) as produced by special float process (see column 1, lines 45-50). As such, Wang et al teaches an ultrathin glass with a thickness falling within the limitations of the instant claim, and teaches that soda lime glasses of the ultrathin type can have compositions that, through routine optimization and experimentation of the ranges by one of ordinary skill in the art, would meet each compositional limitation of the instant claim.
Wang et al teaches that the inventive ultrathin glass is used as a cover glass (window) for display applications (see column 2, lines 1-5 and claim 25 – protective film for display screen). Wang et al teaches that a polymer coating can be applied to the glass to form a glass-organic composite for use in OLED displays (see column 19, lines 30-40). An OLED display necessitates a panel having pixels, and because Wang further teaches that the ultrathin glass is a protective cover, the aforementioned coated glass-organic composite would be placed upon the OLED panel. Because the polymer layer is thus between the glass and the display panel, it constitutes a bond layer according to the instant claim. Each structural limitation of claim 13 is therefore met by the teachings of Wang et al, and the display device of the instant claim is thus obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al teaches a thickness of 100 µm.
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al teaches glass transition temperature values falling within the range of the instant claim (see Table 3), but does not specify glass transition temperature for the soda lime glass embodiment. However, this Tg property is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent Tg properties to those of the instant claims. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned soda lime glass taught by Wang et al has a density of 2.5 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned soda lime glass taught by Wang et al has a Young’s (elastic) modulus of 73 GPa.
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al does not specify a hardness of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the hardness property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent hardness properties to those of the instant claims. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 19, Wang et al does not specify fracture toughness of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the fracture toughness property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent fracture toughness properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 20, Wang et al does not quantitatively specify the brittleness of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the brittleness property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent brittleness properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 22, Wang et al teaches Poisson ratio values falling within the range of the instant claim (see Table 3), but does not specify Poisson ratio for the soda lime glass embodiment. However, this property is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent Poisson ratio properties to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 23, Wang et al does not specify average limit drop height of the inventive glasses taught therein. However, the drop height property of a glass is compositionally dependent, and as such the compositionally equivalent glasses that would be arrived at from the anticipatory and overlapping range limitations of Wang et al would necessarily have equivalent average limit drop height properties to those of the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a glass article meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and further having a CTE of the glass article of 65x10-7K-1 to 75x10-7K-1. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a display device meeting each limitation of instant claim 13 and further having a CTE of the cover window of 65x10-7K-1 to 75x10-7K-1.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW23 January 2026